Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1999 (ICPSR 2994)

Principal Investigator(s):United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice

Summary:

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, the
successor to the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE
FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR
9477]), measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons
arrested and booked in 35 sites across the United States. The data address the
following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on
self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs,
(3) self-reported need for alcohol/... (more info)

The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program, the
successor to the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE
FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR
9477]), measures levels of and trends in drug use among persons
arrested and booked in 35 sites across the United States. The data address the
following topics: (1) types of drugs used by arrestees (based on
self-reports and urinalysis), (2) self-reported dependency on drugs,
(3) self-reported need for alcohol/drug treatment, (4) the
relationship between drug use and certain types of offenses, and (5)
the relationship between self-reported indicators of drug use and
indicators of drug use based on urinalysis. Participation in the
project is voluntary, and all information collected from the arrestees
is anonymous and confidential. The data include the arrestee's age,
race, gender, educational attainment, marital status, and the charge
at the time of booking. The modified ADAM/DUF interview
instrument (used for part of the 1995 data and all of the 1996, 1997,
1998, and 1999 data) also collected information about the arrestee's
use of 15 drugs, including recent and past use (e.g., 3-day and 30-day
drug use), age at first use, and whether the arrestee had ever been
dependent on drugs. As part of the ADAM program, arrestees were asked
to provide a urine specimen, which was screened for the presence of
ten drugs, including marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone,
benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon),
barbiturates, and amphetamines (positive test results for amphetamines
were confirmed by gas chromatography).

Access to these data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Restricted Data Use Agreement, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.

Dataset(s)

Study Description

Citation

United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice. Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in the United States, 1999. ICPSR02994-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2000. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02994.v1

(1) St. Louis data are not included in this data
collection, because the city was temporarily on hiatus from the ADAM
program in 1999. (2) The term "arrestee" is used in the documentation,
but because no identifying data are collected in the interview
setting, the data represent numbers of arrests rather than an
unduplicated count of persons arrested. (3) Users are encouraged to
refer to the documentation and reports for the DUF data (ICPSR 9477)
for specific information on the DUF program from 1987-1997. (4) The
user guide, codebook, and data collection instruments are provided as
a Portable Document Format (PDF) file. The PDF file format was
developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF
reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how
to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web
site.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program
was designed to estimate the prevalence of drug use among persons in
the United States who are arrested and booked, and to detect changes
in trends in drug use among this population. ADAM is an expanded and
redesigned version of the Drug Use Forecasting (DUF) Program (DRUG USE
FORECASTING IN 24 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES, 1987-1997 [ICPSR 9477])
that has been upgraded methodologically and was expanded to 35 cities
in 1998. Research addressing the prevalence of drug use typically does
not include the population of offenders and therefore may
underestimate levels of drug use in the United States. The ADAM
program makes a contribution to research on the prevalence of drug use
by sampling persons who are not sampled by other surveys of drug
use. Moreover, the ADAM data provide information that may be used by
law enforcement and drug treatment officials to allocate resources,
design prevention strategies, and gauge the impact of local efforts to
reduce drug use. The following is a sample of the questions addressed
by the data: What types of drugs do arrestees use? Among arrestees
reporting drug use, how many report that they are dependent on drugs?
To what extent do arrestees report a need for alcohol/drug treatment?
Is the likelihood of drug use greater for persons arrested for certain
types of offenses? Finally, what is the relationship between
self-reported drug use and indicators of drug use based on
urinalysis?

Study Design:
The ADAM program is a nonexperimental survey of
drug use among arrestees. In addition to supplying information on
self-reported drug use, arrestees are asked to provide a urine
specimen at the conclusion of the interview, which is screened for the
presence of ten illicit drugs. Between 1987 and 1997, the ADAM/DUF
program collected information about drug use among arrestees from
booking facilities in 24 sites across the United States, although the
number of data collection sites varied slightly from year to
year. Prior to 1998, samples of arrestees for the ADAM/DUF program
were drawn from booking facilities within each of the sites and thus
were limited to the types of arrestees booked at these facilities. In
11 sites (Atlanta, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, Detroit, Houston,
Kansas City, Omaha, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Washington, DC), the
catchment area represented the central city. The data from the city of
Denver included Denver County in its entirety, and the St. Louis data
also encompassed a county. (Kansas City ceased being a DUF site after
1992.) In ten additional sites (Dallas, Ft. Lauderdale, Indianapolis,
Miami, New Orleans, Manhattan [New York City], Phoenix, Portland, San
Antonio, and San Jose), the catchment area was the county, parish, or
borough. In 1998, ADAM expanded to 35 sites, making a concerted effort
to add sites west of the Mississippi River. The 12 new sites were
Albuquerque, Anchorage, Des Moines, Laredo, Las Vegas, Minneapolis,
Oklahoma City, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Seattle, Spokane, and
Tucson. The data collection area for each site included the county
within which the city is located. Anchorage and New York are the
exceptions: Anchorage represented the city only and New York included
all five boroughs, which represents five separate counties. The name
of the New York site was changed from Manhattan to New York City to
reflect the inclusion of all boroughs. In 1999, St. Louis was
temporarily on hiatus from the ADAM program, resulting in a total of
34 sites for 1999. Data collection took place four times a year (once
each calendar quarter) in each site on a staggered schedule, with
collection periods for any single population (male, female, or
juvenile) generally lasting 1-2 consecutive weeks. Data collection for
the various populations did not necessarily run
concurrently. Interviewing typically occurred over 4- to 8-hour shifts
every day for a 1- to 2-week period. Trained local staff at each site
administered voluntary, confidential interviews and obtained anonymous
urine specimens from detained arrestees who had been in a booking
facility for not more than 48 hours. The number of persons interviewed
and the demographic composition of those interviewed varied somewhat
across the 34 sites participating in the 1999 ADAM program. On
average, each site attempted to obtain a sample of 225 adult males per
quarter. Data were collected from approximately 100 adult females each
quarter at 33 of the 34 sites. In addition, nine sites collected data
from juvenile males and six collected data from juvenile
females. These data are provided in Part 2, Juvenile Arrestees
Data. At sites in which juveniles were interviewed, staff attempted to
obtain samples of 100 boys and 100 girls, although in many sites these
quotas were not met due to the small number of juvenile detainees from
which to draw samples. Beginning in 1998, all arrestees booked into a
facility within the previous 48 hours were eligible to be interviewed,
including those arrested on warrants only. This represents a
substantial change from the eligibility criteria used in past
years. Users are encouraged to consult the user guides for ICPSR 9477
to compare the eligibility criteria used from 1987-1997.

Description of Variables:
The data include the age, race, sex, educational
attainment, marital status, employment status, and living
circumstances of a sample of persons arrested and booked in the United
States. The modified ADAM/DUF interview instrument (used for part of
the 1995 data and all of the 1996, 1997, 1998 and 1999 data) also
includes detailed questions about each arrestee's self-reported use of
15 drugs. For each drug type, arrestees were asked whether they had
ever used the drug, the age at which they first used the drug, whether
they had used the drug within the past three days, how many days they
had used the drug within the past month, whether they had ever needed
or felt dependent on the drug, and whether they were dependent on the
drug at the time of the interview. Data from the new interview
instrument also include information about whether arrestees had ever
injected drugs and whether they were influenced by drugs when they
allegedly committed the crimes for which they were arrested. Further, the
data include information about whether the arrestee had been to an
emergency room for drug-related incidents and whether he or she had
prior arrests in the last 12 months. Data that continue to be
collected with the new version of the ADAM/DUF instrument provide
information about each arrestee's history of drug/alcohol treatment,
including whether they ever received drug/alcohol treatment and
whether they needed drug/alcohol treatment. In addition to the survey,
a urine specimen provided by the arrestee was screened (by the drug
testing system EMIT, Enzyme Multiplied Immunoassay Testing) for the
following ten drug types: marijuana, opiates, cocaine, PCP, methadone,
benzodiazepines (Valium), methaqualone, propoxyphene (Darvon),
barbiturates, and amphetamines. All positive results for amphetamines
were confirmed by gas chromatography to eliminate positives that may
be caused by over-the-counter drugs. Finally, the following variables
included in the data were collected for use by local law enforcement
officials at each site: precinct (precinct of arrest) and law (penal
law code associated with the crime for which the subject was
arrested).

Response Rates:
Approximately 80 percent of eligible arrestees
agreed to be interviewed. This agreement rate is down from
approximately 90 percent in previous years of the DUF program due to a
change in the sampling method. With all arrestees eligible for the
ADAM program, an increased number of arrestees did not agree to
participate. Of those who consented to the interview, approximately 80
percent provided a urine specimen. The dataset includes only those
persons who both agreed to be interviewed and provided a urine
specimen.

Presence of Common Scales:
None.

Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of
disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major
statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to
these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Performed consistency checks.

Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:2000-11-15

Version History:

2006-03-30 File CB2994.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads.